I note with some dismay that a disciplinary hearing has opted to apply no further sanction on Lions hooker Robbie Coetzee after he was red carded on Saturday for kicking Sharks flanker Jacques Vermeulen in the face.

We don’t know too much about what happened at the hearing or what cunning arguments Coetzee’s counsel put forward. Perhaps surprisingly, there was absolutely no detail given either in the terse press release, stating only that the kick was “completely accidental” and Coetzee is thus free to play on.

This, to me, is utter rubbish and I’ll tell you why.

Firstly – was the red card rescinded or expunged from the player’s record? No, it wasn’t, so it’s not like the judiciary found some magical evidence to contradict the clear and obvious fact that Coetzee actually kicked Vermeulen in the face. The red card was, of course, completely the right call in the circumstances and all the talk about the player being “unlucky” is disingenuous at best and downright unhelpful at worst. Foul play does not belong in the game and players who kick other players in the face deserve long suspensions.

So what then of the fabled “intent”? Ah, it was an accident, poor lamb. How can you suspend him? Ok, so then if he wasn’t trying to kick Vermeulen in the face, what was he trying to do? The only other thing he could have been trying to kick (that doesn’t make his case worse) is the ball.

Have a read of this. It should jog some memories. It’s pretty clear that you’re not allowed to kick the ball out of the try scorer’s hands. Actually, you’re not allowed to ever kick the ball out of another player’s hands. That’s a law. It exists. For safety and stuff.

So, if Coetzee wasn’t trying to kick Vermeulen, but was trying to kick the ball, then he was attempting to commit an illegal act in any event. How then, I ask you, can we conclude that his action was completely accidental and without intent?

70 Comments

Rob, I agree on a lot of points – including the validity of the red card – but am on a different page regarding post-match sanctions.

For the most part, I’m happy with cards for cases like this and Kwagga in the final in the name of stamping it out of the game. Don’t put yourself in positions that can cause harm to others.

However, in my mind the post-match sanctions should be reserved for the more heinous indiscretions. The spear tackles, dangerous tackles and other acts of thuggery (punching, eye-gouging etc).

I’d almost suggest a 3-tiered carding system:
* yellow card remains as is
* different card for acts like Coetzee and Kwagga. This sees the player ejected from the game, but team can replace him after maybe 20 minutes. And these often won’t have post-match sanctions
* red card remains as is, and is saved for the real thuggery.

Of course, it comes back to judging intent – and it isn’t lost on me that that can be almost impossible to do, which means this blanket-sanction situation is probably the easiest. It just irks me that, in terms of in-game sanctions, something like Kwagga has exactly the same result as a straight-up punch to the face.

Too much responsibility is being placed referee re red cards. One only needs to listen to the conversation between tmo, ref and the guy in the ivory tower to hear that, seldom do they have the same train of thought. Isn’t it time rugby followed soccer or hockey whereby a ref can award a yellow for an initial sanction without the player being ejected from the field. A second indescretion, issue 2nd yellow which upgrades to an immediate red.
Having said that I believe kwagga should’ve been yellow and robbie a definite red.

I know my whole premise is based on mind-reading…..but to me, Coetzee’s action was very different to throwing a punch or kneeing somebody.

Again, I 100% agree with the red card – but am also satisfied that the in-game punishment was sanction enough and no ban was warranted. (It did, in all likelihood, cos his team 4 log points)

Comment 4, posted at 15.08.17 10:57:15 by Shakes34

@Shakes34 (Comment 4) : what was he trying to do when he accidentally kicked Jacques in the face? What did he think he was doing?

Comment 5, posted at 15.08.17 10:59:15 by robdylan

@robdylan (Comment 5) : Hey dude, on something totally different now, is see apparently Dick Muir is set to return tovthe Sharks in some coaching capacity role

Comment 6, posted at 15.08.17 11:01:28 by HB

@robdylan (Comment 5) : Beyond a shadow of a doubt trying to kick the ball – illegal and cardable in itself. I absolutely won’t argue that point.

He tried to do something illegal, it went horribly wrong and a yellow became a red. I couldn’t be more on board with that.

Think the only place we differ is the degree of sanction. My opinion, and it’s only my opinion, is that the post-match bans should be reserved for acts of real thuggery. I don’t class this as such.

Comment 7, posted at 15.08.17 11:02:49 by Shakes34

Maybe it’s his exemplary record of not kicking people in the head… oh wait…

Comment 8, posted at 15.08.17 11:13:21 by gregkaos

Didn’t SANZAAR specifically mention that intention will have no bearing on whether or not a player is guilty? Sure he did not try and kick Vermeulen in the face, but he definitely tried to do something else illegal (kick the ball out of the player’s hand), which resulted in him kicking Vermeulen. I am fairly sure it was last year that Kolisi kicked a ball out of Reinach’s hand as he was scoring the try. Also accidental, but he got carded in the message we received was that it was correct, as you may not kick the ball out of a player’s hand and intentional or unintentional does not matter. If RC was falling over, fair enough, but he was trying to kick, just trying to kick the ball, so he was in complete control over his movements.

Comment 9, posted at 15.08.17 11:20:48 by HeinF

@Bayshark (Comment 3) : hockey actually have a three card system:
Green player is sidelined for 2-3 min
Yellow player is sidelined for 5 min
Red card you’re gone for the rest of the match.

Comment 10, posted at 15.08.17 11:22:36 by JD

@Shakes34 (Comment 7) : I agree with you on this: It looked like he tried to kick the ball out of his hands and I don’t believe his real intention was to kick him in the face to hurt him. But you have to remember that he still kicked him in the face as a result of his own decision to try and kick the ball out of Vermeulens hands with full knowledge that he might hurt him in the process. If it did not occur to him that trying to kick a ball right next to someones face would potentially hurt that person, he shouldn’t go on any sport field again.

Comment 11, posted at 15.08.17 11:23:12 by Quintin

@HB (Comment 6) : sloooooooowly. “is set to return” is a big leap, assuming it’s the speculative Beeld article to which you’re referring?

Comment 12, posted at 15.08.17 11:24:47 by robdylan

@Quintin (Comment 11) : my view is even simpler. When you decide to kick out and there is a player lying anywhere nearby, the action is intentional and you must accept whatever consequences result form the action. Intent be damned

Comment 13, posted at 15.08.17 11:26:07 by robdylan

@robdylan (Comment 12) : might be the one, although I read it on the SA rugby mag site, and according to them it is all done and dusted, but they don’t mention which position he will occupy

Comment 14, posted at 15.08.17 11:32:58 by HB

@Bayshark (Comment 3) : I know stuff all about hockey but are you saying that a kick to the head of a player that took a tumble, or a punch etc would at most get a yellow card if its a first offence?

Comment 15, posted at 15.08.17 11:35:17 by Salmonoid the Subtle

@JD (Comment 10) : I’m still in the dinasaur days where it was only green was warning, yellow 5+min and red. Didn’t realize new rules that green is also time off.

Comment 16, posted at 15.08.17 12:19:21 by Bayshark

@Bayshark (Comment 16) : yip and time only starts once you sit down on the chair. Seeing players running to the naughty chair looks a bit funny but the sooner you sit down the faster you can get back onto the field.

Comment 17, posted at 15.08.17 12:24:08 by JD

@HB (Comment 14) : “Dick Muir could be set for a return to the Sharks’ coaching ranks ahead of the 2018 Super Rugby campaign.”

That’s the quote directly from SA Rugby Mag and they make it clear that the Beeld article is their source.

What’s done and dusted about that?

Comment 18, posted at 15.08.17 12:25:03 by robdylan

@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 15) : No not at all. Just suggesting that refs decisions these days generate to much discussion. I ask the question, was Beauden Barrett a definite red or was yellow a better option. Stephen Lewes the same. And honestly refs must get away from this rubbish…… Team warning. The Perpetrator must get sanctioned. There are 8 pairs of eyes officiating.

Comment 19, posted at 15.08.17 12:27:47 by Bayshark

@robdylan (Comment 18) : There is also an article on News 24, so obviously it is done and dusted, otherwise a reputable company like them would never publish the article

Comment 20, posted at 15.08.17 12:33:37 by HeinF

Red cards should carry a automatic ban when the person received them as a punishment for receiving the card. The only way they dont get a ban would be to get the card removed from their history. The other thing that needs to be stamped out is the issue of games etc as the kiwis always put in club games as part of the ban which i think is absolutely pathetic how that is allowed.

Comment 21, posted at 15.08.17 12:37:13 by Dunx

@robdylan (Comment 18) : This is good news guys. Also I understand that we are looking for a forwards coach. Gary Teichman listening to the fans and making rugby decisions. Sean Everitt must maybe be taken to NZ for a couple of years and then come back a better attack coach

Intention in law is defined in three types: direct, indirect and eventuality.

Murder: you walk up to a guy, shoot him in the face….direct intent.
You shoot a guy at distance, miss him and shoot the guy next to him in the leg. You will be convicted.

It’s clear that you did not intend to shoot the guy in the leg but hell you did! And it must be punished.
So a red card certainly warrants further consideration to address the construed and dangerous indirect INTENT.

Comment 28, posted at 15.08.17 13:06:39 by JustPlainSHARK

What should be looked at it whether or not the kick was reckless by Robbie. To my mind it was. Therefore the red card and ban are justified.

The precedent set now it’s that if you take someone out in the air accidentally then you shouldn’t be banned, or is a tackle in the air somehow more dangerous than kicking a prone player in the face?

Comment 29, posted at 15.08.17 13:17:54 by StevieS

@robdylan (Comment 27) : I saw that on SA Rugby Mag website too and shrugged it off right until the last sentence that goes like this:

“Sharks CEO Gary Teichmann refused to comment on the matter.

‘Nothing has been finalised. We will make an announcement as soon as there is anything official to report.’”

It’s that last bit, “We will make an announcement as soon as there is anything official to report.” sounds like this move is in motion and they are waiting on a few signatures. Which isn’t done and dusted but certainly looks like a probable outcome. Now on saying that I’d love for Muir to come back, I was disappointed when he left and feel he can add to our attacking game. JP Pietersen did have the most Super Rugby tries in 2007, perhaps that was something to do with Muir? Who really knows…

Comment 30, posted at 15.08.17 13:28:16 by Hulk

@Hulk (Comment 30) : not a direct quote. Been translated from Afrikaans and might not mean what we think it does from that quote.

Comment 31, posted at 15.08.17 13:43:02 by robdylan

A few years ago, the Sharks beat a full strength Crusaders team in Christchurch with 14, and for a while 13 players. Jean Deysel was red carded for kicking a player in the face, it was not intentional, he was being held and trying to free his leg, but it was reckless and deserved a red card, and the subsequent suspension handed down. Robbie Coetzee intended to kick the ball, and kicked Vermuelen in the face, it was not intentional, but it was reckless and deserved a red card. Question: Was Deysel’s indiscretion that much worse that it deserved a suspension on top of the red? I personally do not think so.

Comment 32, posted at 15.08.17 13:48:48 by Dancing Bear

@robdylan (Comment 31) : Can’t read the Beeld, and seems I should know better when reading sa rugby mag website . Thanks for clearing that up, but will still hope

@Hulk (Comment 34) : The funny thing is that being right all the time is impossible, it is much easier to achieve some level of consistency. When a ref makes a wrong call, people may get frustrated, but most understand that we all make mistakes. The inconsistency will always raise questions of bias, which no true rugby lover wants to see in our beautiful game.

Comment 35, posted at 15.08.17 14:12:01 by Dancing Bear

I think unless the Red Card is rescinded it should come with a mandatory 1 match ban. And a match being a match of the same level as the red card was issued in.

Comment 36, posted at 15.08.17 15:40:05 by SheldonK

Just watched the game and in my honest opinion that warrants further suspension,with his toe up in the air like that and after the try have been scored, I am struggling to find that unintentional, but that is just my opinion, especially taking into account he already had a ban this year for kneeing a Kings player in the back during SR

Comment 37, posted at 15.08.17 16:05:04 by BarendL

OK I did not see the incident so can’t comment on what happened. All I can say is usually the question ask by the ref (to TMO) is where (which part of the body) was contact made not what was the intention of the player. If the contact was made directly to the face he should have been suspended for games.

Comment 38, posted at 15.08.17 16:33:26 by JD

@Shakes34 (Comment 1) : Ok so lets say that stud from his boot took out Vermeulens eye? what would your view be then?

Comment 39, posted at 15.08.17 18:13:50 by sharks_lover

@robdylan (Comment 13) : Correct Rob, So we can also argue no intent from Kwagga to run into the Sader player but he got 4 week ban, so what if Vermeulen lost an eye? would it still be no intent?? Sorry that is the biggest crap I have ever heard so I agree with you as he kicked Vermeulen in the face with an Illegal attempt to kick the ball out of the players hands which in itself is a yellow offence.

Comment 40, posted at 15.08.17 18:19:10 by sharks_lover

Unfortunately, I do think rules are being applied as and when and who its fits. It might also be applied as in most court cases on who has the best representation. In this country (and not to talk politics) there seems to be overwhelming evidence of certain irregularities of our president, but to no avail as no action has been taken against him.

On a different note, I heard from one of the presenters from Kyknet’s Superrugby program that according to the laws the Lions team was supposed to proceed with 13 players when they decided to “release” one of the props from the match. Law 3.6 (d) Uncontested scrums states that “In a squad of 23 players, or at the discretion of the Union/match organiser, a player whose departure has caused the referee to order uncontested scrums cannot be replaced”

Comment 41, posted at 15.08.17 22:57:22 by BluffShark

@BluffShark (Comment 41) : I didn’t watch the game but in the Currie Cup the match day teams have 22 players not 23. They don’t have a a full front row on the bench.

As to Robbie’s red card – fully deserved.

But if the JO expunged it (which we don’t know as the full decision wasn’t published) the Sharks should be docked with the 21 points they scored after he should have returned from a yellow card.

Only joking

Comment 42, posted at 15.08.17 23:13:14 by Baylion

BTW, Congrats on the win and the great come-back

Comment 43, posted at 15.08.17 23:15:15 by Baylion

I think this question was asked on the site before, but not sure i it was answered. In a situation like this, is there any legal way for a team to challenge a decision like this? Let’s say WP wanted to challenge the call (or the sharks) as this would mean the RC would not be in team facing them, is there any way that a union can appeal the decision? Just doesn’t make sense to me that a panel’s decision (when it is obviously inconsistent) should be completely final with no way to object their decision.

Comment 44, posted at 16.08.17 10:42:52 by HeinF

@HeinF (Comment 44) : Nope a third party team cannot challenge it. They have all agreed to abide by the judiciary outcomes.

Comment 45, posted at 16.08.17 11:14:16 by SheldonK

I ve been waiting for this one. “Matthews cops one-match ban – Matthews tackled Seabelo Senatla after the WP winger scored a try in the Currie Cup match played at Newlands last Saturday. The Blue Bulls fullback was subsequently cited for transgressing Law 10.4 (e).

Matthews’ received a one-match ban after attending a disciplinary hearing on Tuesday.”

I havent watched this incident as often as the Robbie Cetzee one but I have seen it more than once and I am convinced that there was absolutely no intent to tackle Senatla late or after he had scored his try. To me Mathews launched himself into the tackle much at the same time that Senatla dove for the line – it was a matter of milliseconds and body position and we would have all been praising Mathews on a great try saving tackle.

But instead what do we have – a guy that could have taken someones eye out with an action long after a try was scored walking away Scot free while another who was genuinely trying to tackle a player out into touch being suspended.

Not good.

Comment 46, posted at 16.08.17 11:16:24 by Salmonoid the Subtle

@HeinF (Comment 44) : Ok Sheldon answered that but talking about appeals can the next person who gets a red card and a suspension for kicking a try socorer in the face while attempting to illegally kick the ball out of the try scorers hands now cite non intent (no one is ever going to say they intended to hoof the guy in the face anyway) and point to this decission of Coetzees and expect the same treatment.

Comment 47, posted at 16.08.17 11:24:33 by Salmonoid the Subtle

@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 47) : I hav no doubt they will use that argument as a precident has been set

Comment 48, posted at 16.08.17 12:10:34 by SheldonK

@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 46) : Just a thought Salmo. Matthews was not red carded correcr? He was cited after the match. I would say it is worse to get a red card and force your team to have to finish the match with only 14 men for more than 20 minutes, vs a one-match suspension where your team can play with a full complement.

Comment 49, posted at 16.08.17 12:17:53 by Dancing Bear

@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 46) : Your point is well taken, I just wonder if it is a truly apt comparison (Matthews to RC) I do think that RC should have copped a suspension in line with Kwagga’s, so a one week suspension would have been a joke like no suspension. Reckless is reckless, and even though I am sure he had no intent to kick JV in the face, he clearly tried to kick the ball WELL AFTER the try was scored, which is reckless, dangerous, and simply childish and petulant..

Comment 50, posted at 16.08.17 12:22:40 by Dancing Bear

@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 47) : What I was also thinking. Bringing intent into their decision was one of the dumbest things the committee could have done. Stupidity such as this just amazes me some days…

Comment 51, posted at 16.08.17 12:26:31 by HeinF

@Dancing Bear (Comment 50) : Did they ever mention who the people were that served on the committee? In SR they usually name them.

Comment 52, posted at 16.08.17 12:27:57 by HeinF

@HeinF (Comment 52) : I think that is one of the big problems that people seem to have with the RC decision, it seems they have not released any information, it all seemed to happen behind closed doors, and that is never a good thing, questions will always be raised. At least if they publish their reasoning, we can disagree, but at least we know where they are coming from.

Comment 53, posted at 16.08.17 12:36:32 by Dancing Bear

@Dancing Bear (Comment 53) : Yes, that really bothered me. Happened so quickly and seemed so sinister. Provide a full report, explain the decision and tell us who made the decision, then at least I will feel more informed, even though I might still not agree with the decision. It’s like they just quickly wanted to get this out of the way and focus on something else.

Comment 54, posted at 16.08.17 12:44:15 by HeinF

@HeinF (Comment 54) : Exactly, which is why I think so many are still talking about it, when it seems to happen in secrecy, people will always want to know what was behind the decision.

Comment 55, posted at 16.08.17 12:52:30 by Dancing Bear

@Dancing Bear (Comment 49) : @Dancing Bear (Comment 50) : No Mathews wasnt carded, the refs and TMO must have seen it the same way as I did Yep his sanction is not hurting his team as they will be able to play with a full complement for the entire game as opposed to the Lions that were a man down for 30 minutes but my issue really is with what happens after the incident and in the tribunal where the evidence is seen and heard and the decisions are taken. At that stage it should be a clean slate that the players are starting with an their time spent off the field during the game should have no bearing on the outcome – its in view of this that I think Mathews has been hard done by. Basically Im only comparing 2 (lets call them both unintentional actions, 1 a kick to the face and the second a tackle, both transgressions taking place after a player had scored. Here the late tackle gets the sanction while the kick to the head gets away without any further action – in that light I think its crazy and is still going to come back and bite us at some time.

Comment 56, posted at 16.08.17 14:35:04 by Salmonoid the Subtle

@Dancing Bear (Comment 55) : I am amazed these guys even debated intent in the RC case, cause if they could prove intent then this guy should be banned for life.What can you ever do on a rugby field that is worse than intently kicking someone in the face.
Must believe (sic) that it was unintentional..

@Big Fish (Comment 58) : True, also the guy taking a wild back kick (raking motion) after Vermeullen scored his first try – the kick actually landed on Vermeulens backside but could have landed anywhere. Inconsistant.

Comment 59, posted at 16.08.17 16:40:42 by Salmonoid the Subtle

@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 56) : As I understand it, the commission handling a case after a citing is required to consider the on field sanction, and there have been several cases where it was ruled that the on field sanction was sufficient. Of course we don’t know this is what the ruling was in this case because they have chosen to be secretive with their decision, which is unfortunate. I believe that with the current Rugby view that the head should be protected at all costs, that this case deserved a suspension of several weeks. I also think the Matthews case was such that if he was red carded he would not have received a sanction.

Comment 60, posted at 16.08.17 16:57:27 by Dancing Bear

@The hound (Comment 57) : I’m with you. It was a massive brain fart on his part, and he realized it immediately as he leaned over and put his hand on Vermuelen’s shoulder realizing what he had done. I also felt his reaction to the red card showed he understood the magnitude of his action. We have to remember that besides the red card, we also got a penalty on the half way line after the conversion, leading to another attacking opportunity.

Comment 61, posted at 16.08.17 17:02:45 by Dancing Bear

@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 59) : I’m also not a fan of digging through every bit of footage, from every angle to find a citing case. Certainly if there is true foul play, it should be reviewed (like RC’s boot to the face) but I feel it has gone too far.. These are big, strong, professional men playing an aggressive sport while keeping within the laws. Lines will be crossed, but not every crossed line deserves a review a thousand times over in super slow motion. Keep it to the true foul play, not what Matthews did, which I think was nothing more than poor timing, and like other late tackles deserved to be penalized and nothing more. I think there is a little bit of protecting the 7s superstar syndrome in play here.

I do think he makes some valid comments. I for example am not in favour with the amount of “power” the match officials have over the outcome of the match and I do support the notion that we as spectators are robbed of a decent match when any cards are issued.

I would propose that before any card may be issued all match officials should confirm that they are in agreement with that sanction. Furthermore, if it is an individual that resulted in the card, then only he should be punished and not the entire team and all its supporters. In such a case the player should be sent off and may be replaced by a reserve. This individual may then be dealt with further if needed to be after the match. The criteria to determine if it is an individual or a team’s misconduct is a clear and precise team warning been issued for a similar or related issue.

Back to Robbie’s issue”, Herman stated “… no questions were asked why Coetzee was attempting a kick in the first place. It’s illegal to kick the ball out of a player’s hands, so in my book he had no business doing what he did. Had Coetzee managed to do as intended, he would have conceded a penalty try and in all likelihood have copped a yellow card at best.”

@Dancing Bear (Comment 62) : Quite true, the game is being slowed down to a too great extent as it is but this is where the citing commissioner and those assisting him can and should step in. I really dont mind if they have a thorough look at the game with the express aim of finding and addressing dirty / illegal play. I hope they are mandated to do just that (among other things). Im also not advocating that each incident of dirty / illegal play be punished but I think if they let the transgressors (individual, coach and management) know that they have noted this and that during the game and that they will in future be on the lookout for similar transgressions.

Coming back to that second kick on Vermeulens backside – that didnt require any serious digging, it was out in the open – even Hugh Bladen saw it and thought that that was what the TMO was looking at.

Comment 65, posted at 17.08.17 09:20:16 by Salmonoid the Subtle

@BluffShark (Comment 63) : This is not my thought but what someone else posted somewhere else and it makes sense to me for sending a red carded player off and not replacing him with another player at any stage of the game. His train of thought may sound sinister but stranger things have happened n sport.

Basically it goes like this. Team A is playing team B, both teams are equal in all aspects except that one of the teams has Dan Carter in their team – advantage Dan Carters team. Now for the sinister bit, the team without a Dan Carter takes out Dan Carter illegally to such an extent that he cannot carry on with the game,the one slight advantage the one team had has just been negated and the team will have to replace him with someone of a lesser talent, the advantage could now have shifted to the transgressing team – psychologically the DC team will feel bummed while the other team will feel buoyed by playing against a team without Carter. As it stands the player taking out Carter will have to end the game with 14 players – a very real disadvantage and deterant to dirty play. If the transgressing team is allowed to replace the player that took out Carter then they may have a player of better quality on the bench than the offender so they come back strengthened while Carters team is weakened.

The player who took out DC for his team faces a personal fine and suspension. He would only deliberately do such a thing if he expected (was promised) a compensatory reward from the team management.
This is called a criminal conspiracy to inflict serious bodily harm and is already dealt with in our societies through the court and prison.

Your scenario is a non issue though.
Most American sports allow the replacement of ejected players, since many years.
Problem free.

Comment 67, posted at 17.08.17 11:29:35 by fyndraai

@fyndraai (Comment 67) : I was talking about a world sport here, not sports as defined by one country and a few of their colonies.

As for the conspiracy and the courts – maybe they would be a little less subtle than to advertise what their intentions are and thus opening themslves up to prosecution..

Comment 68, posted at 17.08.17 11:51:59 by Salmonoid the Subtle

@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 68) : @fyndraai (Comment 67) : personally I think soccer/football is closest to getting it right. If you get a red card you’re automatically band for at least one game. Get 3 yellow card and the same applies. All of this is also competition/league related. So basically if you’re red carded in Super rugby you’re band from playing next Super rugby game even if it must stand over untill the first game of the next season.
Also I’m not in favour of replacing red carded players (even after say 20min) as I believe rugby is a team sport and unfortunately the whole team will suffer the consequences if a memeber of the team transgressed the rules! If a scrum penalty is conceded and a penalty goal is scored is the player 3 points down or maybe just the forwards no the whole team is 3 points down.

Comment 69, posted at 17.08.17 12:45:39 by JD

I hear you guys, but I honestly think that rugby is slowly being destroyed with these cards. The competition between the two teams is nearly eliminated and the spectator fan experience is suffering. I watch some games recently and whether my team won or not felt so “cheated” of that rugby excitement after a card swing the game in someone’s favour. I don’t want to be called the champion if I didn’t beat the rest at their best.